Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: amorphous
Wait!

That's not a planet!

2 posted on 09/20/2019 8:33:40 PM PDT by going hot (happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: All

I have developed a theory of variable G which basically predicts that all objects thought to be less massive than the earth have in fact even less mass than constant G would predict, and conversely all objects more massive would be even heavier than we thought.

This theory would predict that Mars has the density of about 1.1, in other words, largely a water world. And massive ruptures of the thin crust from asteroid strikes would cause the observed water erosion on a large scale, not some past climate where Mars had a dense atmosphere and rainfall.

The theory also predicts that the Moon is hollow, and that the larger “gas giant” planets have more metallic content in their interiors (although still large amounts of methane in their thick atmospheres), and that the Sun is a largely solid object.

I am hoping that accidentally this theory will be proven one day. G is thought to be constant because it seems constant in earth laboratory experiments, but these remove all magnetic influences which I would propose are intermediate forms of variable G. So the experiments are going to miss the variability of G by eliminating any environment that represents it.

Ironically, the 19th century view was that the Sun was solid and that sunspots were areas of this solid core exposed to our view by magnetic disturbances removing the atmosphere of plasma. So why is the Sun so hot if solid? Its gravity attracts large numbers of energetic particles which then are repelled in magnetic storm episodes.

The hollow Moon theory is backed by observations of how moonquakes behave, the outer crust rings like a bell.

The other implication is that as you go to smaller and smaller scales of mass, G would locally be larger than we think (this is how variable G has to work, since we know the value of the product G x M). Since the electro-magnetic force is said to be many orders of magnitude stronger than gravitation, this is why — it is gravitation at that level.

I expect this will be discovered as a unified field theory eventually, whether in my lifetime or some later date, may take a century or many centuries. But when you think about it, why should there be two different forces, gravitation and electro-magnetism?


7 posted on 09/20/2019 8:45:47 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell (Take the next train to Marxville and I'll meet you at the camp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: going hot

It’s an egg!


16 posted on 09/20/2019 9:32:20 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson